OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens

WMDE

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Proposal for a Directive on cross-border activities of associations

25 Oct 2022

Wikimedia Deutschland welcomes the proposal of a legislative initiative on cross-border activities of associations. As a part of Wikimedia movement comprising many entities (affiliates) across the EU we have first hand-experience with cross-border cooperation contributing to access to free knowledge and advocating for freedom of expression and access to information. We see a great need to access the freedoms of the single market and to promote and protect fundamental rights. EU-level recognition of non-profit/public benefit status The call for evidence stipulates the option of mutual recognition of associations among Member States. In our opinion, this is as important as creating a legal form of an European Association. Not every association interested in cooperation with its counterpart in another Member State will also want to take the form of an European association - this will definitely be true for many of our Affiliates in Wikimedia. It is important that the MSs are bound to recognise charitable, non-profit or public benefit status in other member states so that the associations having it can also be recognised across borders along with their work. VAT exemptions for dealing between associations with non-profit/public benefit status Statutory work of non-profit organisations should be exempt from VAT when their cross-border cooperation involves transfer of funds, goods or performance of services. It would make the cooperation easier and it would only concern statutory activities. As such, the exemption would not challenge any provision of goods and services that some associations carry for commercial purposes not directly related to their statutory work. It would not privilege associations in the provision of commercial goods and services when they are not directly related to the statutory work. This would require a uniform harmonisation of tax legislation.
Read full response

Response to Legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces

28 Jul 2020

Our Vision Wikimedia Deutschland, as part of the international Wikimedia Movement provides essential infrastructure for free knowledge. Most notably, WMDE develops Wikidata, the largest free data repository, out of Berlin. It is a free, collaborative, multilingual knowledge base focused on verifiability, collecting structured data to provide support for Wikipedia and to anyone in the world who needs general purpose structured data. By enabling new ways of accessing knowledge, we not only give people more choice, we also lower barriers of entry for people who have not been well supported in the past. For example, impaired or lost vision should not be a reason for not finding answers to complicated questions online. All this starts with the data and information that underpins knowledge. Our View We strongly support the Commission's vision of the single market for data “where data is available for use in full respect of European values and rules”. As the Open Science Communities efforts and Wikidata have proven, freely sharing information and data is imperative for a growing network of knowledge and are supporting non-for-profit purposes as well as business-focused ventures. We would like to emphasize the importance of “data altruism” and consented data, not only by individual persons, but also by organizations and institutions. Wikipedia and Wikidata put together a large amount of information and freely accessible sources of information online. None of these projects would exist without people willing to invest time and share knowledge and data. Neither would the Corona Apps provided by the national governments work in the effort to collectively slow down the pandemic. There is a big willingness of individuals on supporting the common good all over the European Union. SHARED OBJECTIVES The Commission has identified the right objectives for the road ahead: 1.Make more data held by the public sector usable for research and innovative uses 2. Make more data usable for the common good for research and innovative uses 3. Enhancing data use in the society and economy by lowering transaction costs THREE POINTS TO EMPHASISE 1. OPEN BY DEFAULT We would like to stress that the free flow of data in respect of the aforementioned rights of others should be an open one and not be access-prohibited. The transaction cost of providing or accessing data especially for non-for-profit organizations or individuals and small and medium enterprises should be as low as possible. Any kind of registration, body and conditions for re-use of data increases the transaction costs by design. The less exclusive data access is, the more stakeholders can get to work and the more spill-over-effects can be expected, e.g. location intelligence - services based on publicly available transportation data and data provided by th local registration officials. Gatekeeping should only be implemented where rights of others are being jeopardized, and avoided where not absolutely necessary. Data should be Open by Default. 2. EXISTING STANDARDS A lack of standardization is being addressed in the initiative, e.g. generic standards for data sharing. In the past, the European commission has adapted existing standards like the CC0-Licensing of shared sata. We strongly emphasize to follow this approach and not build new European standards, but adapt to internationally and commonly accepted standards. 3. NO NEW PROTECTION ON DATA We have experienced layers of protection to be a serious detriment to the sharing of information and data. The sui generis right on databases hasn't contributed to investment in databases, but is making our work to open up and share data more complicated on a daily basis. We not only caution against any new layers of IP or related protections on information or data, but also suggest to convert the current sui generis database right to a opt-in protection (open by default, unless owner objects, similar to text and data mining in CDSM).
Read full response

Response to Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility (CCAM)

16 Nov 2018

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, der Unterpunkt "connectivity" zieht leider noch nicht die Umgebungsvariablen in der analogen Welt in Betracht, die auch für eine sichere Navigation autonomer und teilautonomer Systeme notwendig sind. Eine europaweit harmonisierte Straßenbildfreiheit oder Panoramafreiheit ist zum Beispiel für die sichere Navigation, für die Erstellung und Aktualisierung von Umgebungskarten und verschiedenen Assistenz- und Car-2-X - Systemen in der Kooperation unerlässlich. Dass 5G als infrastruktur bedacht wird, ist richtig. Die Konnektivität mit der realen Welt sollte zumindest aber Erwähnung finden. Der rechtliche Rahmen ist hierzu noch nicht ausreichend genug. Außerdem sollten sich nicht nur autonome Systeme Wissen über ihre Umwelt frei aneignen und sie teilen können. Finden Sie hierzu anbei zur Kenntnis eine Stellungnahme des Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V. zur DSM-Urheberrechtsreform ( 2016/0280 (COD) ) , die das Problem und eine mögliche Lösung technisch genauer ausführen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Bernd Fiedler Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.
Read full response

Response to Measures to further improve the effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online

30 Mar 2018

We welcome the approach to look into greater detail into the information ecosystem online in search of better user protection and ability to execute users’ rights. The favourable aspect of IIA is that it draws on the existing codes, recommendations, but also laws governing the responsibility of the service providers. This approach should be the governing principle of any intervention, especially regarding the limited liability exemption as envisioned in article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive. The measures should not amount to general monitoring of content uploaded by users. It is crucial to analyse the legal fragmentation of notice-and-action and reinforce a unified approach to the procedure. It is of crucial importance to see the platforms as evolving complex mechanisms that exercise control over their business models. The recommendations should not shy away from pointing weak links and opportunities for a better performance. It is especially important in the already known context of the algorithmic setup that may contribute to promoting controversial “clickable” content as means to create more revenue; and a part of that content can be illegal, or inciting illegal behaviour. Any resources on these mechanisms should be reviewed. We welcome the focus on safeguards for the rights and freedoms of users. The best way to ensure it is to not allow for measures that by default jeopardize these freedoms and rights, such as general monitoring obligation or content filtering. Any allowed content detection should be then submitted to a human oversight. This would help prevent both the infringement of rights and avoiding that legal content is erroneously taken down. At the same time it remains to be verified how the existing practices of human oversight contribute both to the safety of users online and to elimination of illegal content. It should be then further investigated how platforms deal with setting up, financing and standardizing the work of teams responsible for verifying the content against community standards and the law. It may turn out that an intervention requiring a more thorough approach will have positive consequences for both of the assessment and its speed. We see the baseline option as a set of activities that can and should be undertaken on some scale especially regarding efforts targeted at smaller companies. Their situation on this highly concentrated market is difficult. All options proposed, including R&D support, database access and possible training seem commendable. Along with more research, monitoring results are necessary to establish if a sector-specific intervention is advisable. As stated before, there are differences in consequences of accessibility of content related directly to criminal offenses and for example hate speech that relies to an extent on its context (cultural and factual) and is more related to the freedom of speech and its legal boundaries. Also the objective to harmonise the approach could be achieved without a massive overhaul of how users communicate online and how the intermediary liability is defined. (full text of our feedback attached)
Read full response